Judge Napolitano distorts 14th Amendment on FoxNews regarding birthright Citizenship

Thread starter #1

johnwk

Senior Member
See: Judge Nap: Trump's Deportation Vow Is Prohibited By Constitution
8/17/15

”Judge Andrew Napolitano explained this morning on "America's Newsroom" what Trump can and cannot do on immigration. He said that Trump's promise to deport children born in America to illegal immigrant mothers is "prohibited by the Constitution."

"The Constitution says very clearly, whoever is born here - no matter the intent of the parent - is a natural-born citizen. He could not change that. Even if he were to change the Constitution, it would not affect people who had already been born here. It would only affect people not yet born here," said Napolitano.”


Why FoxNews allows this propaganda to go unchallenged is suspect to say the least! Let us look at some historical facts.


We are led to believe that if a foreigner enters our country illegally and gives birth to a child, that child, because of the 14th Amendment, becomes a citizen of the United States upon birth. As we shall see, that is one of the biggest myths alleged concerning the text and legislative intent of the 14th Amendment. Let us look at some documented facts.


In IN RE SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES, 83 U.S. 36 (1872) the Court states the following regarding the 14th Amendment:

“That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, subject to its jurisdiction' was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States“.

And in Elk v. Wilkins (1884) the Court affirms the Court’s opinion in the Slaughter-House cases:

”Now, I take it that the children of aliens, whose parents have not only not renounced their allegiance to their native country . . . must necessarily remain themselves subject to the same sovereignty as their parents, and cannot, in the nature of things, be, any more than their parents, completely subject to the jurisdiction of such other country”


'”This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only,-birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof .' The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance”

So why would the Court indicate the wording in the 14th Amendment which declares “and subject to its jurisdiction” was intended to exclude from citizenship “children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States“?

The answer is to be found in the Congressional Globe, 39th Congress, which framed and debated the 14th Amendment. For example, in discussing the proposed 14th Amendment, Senator Howard explains the clear intentions of the 14th Amendment as follows:

The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all "persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.(my emphasis) see: Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (1866) pg. 2890

Later, and after the question was repeatedly asked as to who is and who is not a citizen of the United States, Mr. TRUMBULL responds as follows SEE: page 2893, Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (1866)
1st column halfway down

“The provision is, that “all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.” That means “subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.” . . . “What do we mean by “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?” Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.”

Mr. Trumbull later emphasizes in crystal clear language that: “It cannot be said of any Indian who owes allegiance, partial allegiance if you please, to some other Government that he is “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States”


Mr. JOHNSON then rises to say: “…there is no definition in the Constitution as it now stands as to citizenship. Who is a citizen of the United States is an open question….there is no definition as to how citizenship can exist in the United States except through the medium of a citizenship in a State.

“Now, all that this amendment provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign Power--for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before us--shall be considered as citizens of the United States.”
…he then continues “…the amendment says that citizenship may depend upon birth, and I know of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact of birth within the territory of the United States, born of parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States.”

And then there is John A. Bingham, chief architect of the 14th Amendments first section who considered the proposed national law on citizenship as “simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…” Cong. Globe, page 1291(March 9, 1866) middle column half way down.

And so, a baby born to a foreign national mother while on American soil is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment, nor becomes a citizen of the United States upon birth.

So why is FoxNews allowing Judge Napolitano distortions to go unchallenged?


JWK



"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)
 
Thread starter #2

johnwk

Senior Member
correction

Please note that I incorrectly assigned the following quote in the OP to Justice Gray in Elk v. Wilkins. It actually comes from the dissenting opinion by Justice Fuller in Wong Kim Ark. Sorry!

“This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only,-birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.' The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do [169 U.S. 649, 725] to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the timeo f birth cannot become so afterwards, except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired.'

To be 'completely subject' to the political jurisdiction of the United States is to be in no respect or degree subject to the political jurisdiction of any other government.

Now, I take it that the children of aliens, whose parents have not only not renounced their allegiance to their native country, but are forbidden by its system of government, as well as by its positive laws, from doing so, and are not permitted to acquire another citizenship by the laws of the country into which they come, must necessarily remain themselves subject to the same sovereignty as their parents, and cannot, in the nature of things, be, any more than their parents, completely subject to the jurisdiction of such other country.”



JWK
 

toyota4x4h

Senior Member
I just posted directly from the naturalized citizen site yesterday some points that it said how to become one. And the last one says your child may be naturalized IF you are a legal citizen. Jimbo didnt talk anymore about that. Maybe he can clear that up..to me it reads your child can be naturalized IF you are a citizen.
 
Here's another take on it:

In the 1884 case Elk v. Wilkins, the Supreme Court ruled that the 14th Amendment did not even confer citizenship on Indians — because they were subject to tribal jurisdiction, not U.S. jurisdiction.

For a hundred years, that was how it stood, with only one case adding the caveat that children born to LEGAL permanent residents of the U.S., gainfully employed, and who were not employed by a foreign government would also be deemed citizens under the 14th Amendment. (United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 1898.)

And then, out of the blue in 1982, Justice Brennan slipped a footnote into his 5-4 opinion in Plyler v. Doe, asserting that “no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment ‘jurisdiction’ can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful.” (Other than the part about one being lawful and the other not.)
http://humanevents.com/2010/08/04/justice-brennans-footnote-gave-us-anchor-babies/

Ann Coulter covered this in her book, Adios America.
 

biggsteve

Senior Member
here's a poser....

if a black woman was brought to America, as a slave, in 1850,
would her children born here be considered 'natural citizens'?

would she be considered a legal or illegal immigrant?

if she were illegal, then would ALL of her offspring, years later, not be citizens?

just wondering....can 'citizens' be owned by other citizens?
 
Last edited:

Paleo

Senior Member
it reads your child can be naturalized IF you are a citizen.

That refers to your foreign-born, non-citizen children. A child born in the US does not need to be "naturalized" because he is already a citizen. Naturalization is the process of granting US citizenship to an immigrant. The whole application, classes, test, oath thing.

The language of the 14th Amendment is clear:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
 

jimbo4116

Retired Moderator
I just posted directly from the naturalized citizen site yesterday some points that it said how to become one. And the last one says your child may be naturalized IF you are a legal citizen. Jimbo didnt talk anymore about that. Maybe he can clear that up..to me it reads your child can be naturalized IF you are a citizen.
Wait just a minute I did respond. I posted the 14th amendment and the bullet point you raised.

The 14th states any person born in the US is a citizen. Pretty clear whatever the reason it was adopted.

Your bullet point says that two parents with US citizenship can naturalize children born to them while not in the US at the time of birth.

I am for repeal of citizen by birthright. The original intent was to include former slaves and indians as citizens by birth. Never intended to be a method of immigration.

But the amendment is what it is and the courts will uphold it as presently interpreted. Unlikely a Supreme Court will be seated in the foreseeable future that will "re-interpret" it.

I am just trying to be a realist and pragmatist here.

The quickest way to resolve this problem is by making employment un-available. Making it illegal to make benefits of citizenship available to the parents of birthright children. They will begin to go home on their own. But it will take the will of the people and the government combined to do this. Neither of which is apparent at present.

That said, wonder how many illegals work in Trump's Hotels, Casinos and golf courses. Just saying.
 
But it will take the will of the people and the government combined to do this. Neither of which is apparent at present.
I posit the people have the will but the government refuses to acknowledge that will. The government is a tyrant.

"Sic Semper Tyranus".
 

biggsteve

Senior Member
Wait just a minute I did respond. I posted the 14th amendment and the bullet point you raised.

The 14th states any person born in the US is a citizen. Pretty clear whatever the reason it was adopted.

Your bullet point says that two parents with US citizenship can naturalize children born to them while not in the US at the time of birth.

I am for repeal of citizen by birthright. The original intent was to include former slaves and indians as citizens by birth. Never intended to be a method of immigration.

But the amendment is what it is and the courts will uphold it as presently interpreted. Unlikely a Supreme Court will be seated in the foreseeable future that will "re-interpret" it.

I am just trying to be a realist and pragmatist here.

The quickest way to resolve this problem is by making employment un-available. Making it illegal to make benefits of citizenship available to the parents of birthright children. They will begin to go home on their own. But it will take the will of the people and the government combined to do this. Neither of which is apparent at present.

That said, wonder how many illegals work in Trump's Hotels, Casinos and golf courses. Just saying.
lol. I've been saying this since 2012...

if i've said it once, i've said it a thousand times....

DON'T HIRE THEM....DON'T HIRE THEM...DON'T HIRE THEM...DON'T HIRE THEM...

they'll leave on their own. just DON'T HIRE THEM.
 

jimbo4116

Retired Moderator
I posit the people have the will but the government refuses to acknowledge that will. The government is a tyrant.

"Sic Semper Tyranus".
I respectfully disagree. I still see Hipanics mowing grass, laying brick, hanging sheetrock, cleaning rooms, cooking in kitchens and on and on. When people quit going into the bank with hispanic mowing the grass or refuse to stay in hotel with an hispanic cleaning staff, quit drinking milk and eating chicken then I will agree the "people" have the will.

I will agree that a fair portion of the population is aggrieved at what is happening but ,me included, not many are voting with their feet as the inconvenience of having illegal aliens working here has not out paced the convenience of said same.
 
I respectfully disagree. I still see Hipanics mowing grass, laying brick, hanging sheetrock, cleaning rooms, cooking in kitchens and on and on. When people quit going into the bank with hispanic mowing the grass or refuse to stay in hotel with an hispanic cleaning staff, quit drinking milk and eating chicken then I will agree the "people" have the will.

I will agree that a fair portion of the population is aggrieved at what is happening but ,me included, not many are voting with their feet as the inconvenience of having illegal aliens working here has not out paced the convenience of said same.
It's not that simple. None of us has the time, resources or energy to investigate and determine with certainty which employers hire illegal aliens and which don't.

That being said, I do the best I can at avoiding business establishments that do hire them and violate the law. I admit it's not much. They are ubiquitous at this point and avoiding them entirely would be detrimental to my wealth and sanity.

I personally am in favor of another "Operation Wetback". All we need is a President like Eisenhower determined to see it through regardless of what the Supremes and Congress say about it but that person is not to be found. Unless Trump really means it. I ain't taking that bet brother!
 

jimbo4116

Retired Moderator
It's not that simple. None of us has the time, resources or energy to investigate and determine with certainty which employers hire illegal aliens and which don't.

That being said, I do the best I can at avoiding business establishments that do hire them and violate the law. I admit it's not much. They are ubiquitous at this point and avoiding them entirely would be detrimental to my wealth and sanity.

I personally am in favor of another "Operation Wetback". All we need is a President like Eisenhower determined to see it through regardless of what the Supremes and Congress say about it but that person is not to be found. Unless Trump really means it. I ain't taking that bet brother!
The fact is that a certain amount of prejudice will have to be exercised. Only economic power will solve the problem. Obviously the "government" is not going to doing anything. Both parties are courting not deporting.

I agree with the Operation wetback but Trump ain't no Ike. Never will be.

Again I will say the simplest method is to cut off the employment. Technology exist. E-verify. But in addition as a condition of receiving a work visa(which will be necessary and should be limited to agriculture work) each visa recipient would be bar code with a permanent tattoo.
Sounds absurd to some I am sure. But a bar code tied to a data base of who was good and who was bad would simplify many things plus it would be virtually impossible to duplicate or replicate for nefarious purposes.

It is going to take some politically incorrect methodology to solve this problem.
 
It is going to take some politically incorrect methodology to solve this problem.
Not some. A lot. So far Trump is the only one talking it up. I give him an E for effort on that account.
 

PopPop

Senior Member
The fact is that a certain amount of prejudice will have to be exercised. Only economic power will solve the problem. Obviously the "government" is not going to doing anything. Both parties are courting not deporting.

I agree with the Operation wetback but Trump ain't no Ike. Never will be.

Again I will say the simplest method is to cut off the employment. Technology exist. E-verify. But in addition as a condition of receiving a work visa(which will be necessary and should be limited to agriculture work) each visa recipient would be bar code with a permanent tattoo.
Sounds absurd to some I am sure. But a bar code tied to a data base of who was good and who was bad would simplify many things plus it would be virtually impossible to duplicate or replicate for nefarious purposes.

It is going to take some politically incorrect methodology to solve this problem.
A National ID would do it, and we need to Doooooo Soooomething to make the Country better, right?
 
Never happen!
 

rayjay

Senior Member
If the gooberment weren't sending a check to the unemployed Americans whose jobs the illegals and get are doing there would BE a backlash big enough to make something happen. As it is the worst affected get a little check and distractions like BLM.

That last really shows that to the gooberment BLDM. Black Livelyhoods Don't Matter.
 
Thread starter #20

johnwk

Senior Member
That refers to your foreign-born, non-citizen children. A child born in the US does not need to be "naturalized" because he is already a citizen.
Only if the mother is a citizen of the United States and owes her allegiance to the united States which then makes her "subject to the jurisdiction" of the united States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment

“The provision is, that “all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.” That means “subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.” . . . “What do we mean by “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?” Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.” ___Mr. TRUMBULL, page 2893, Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (1866) 1st column halfway down


JWK
 
Top